Case Law Search

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; Article 13(1)(a) and Article 13(1)(b) had both been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Return ordered

The court ordered the return of the children to the State of Connecticut, United States of America, within two weeks of the order becoming final and binding.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters |

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Lawful removal of a 2-year-old girl – Argentine national – Married parents – American father – Argentine mother – The girl lived in Argentina until April 2017, when her family travelled to the United States. She stayed there and then returned to Argentina in September that same year – The father requested her return before the Argentine courts – Appeal dismissed, return refused – Main Issues: habitual residence, removal and retention – The habitual residence of the girl was in Argentina because she had created no stable or permanent bonds in the United States that allowed for a determination that her place of living was there – The removal was lawful since it had been authorised by court in accordance with Argentine law.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had been proved.

Return refused

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Return refused

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Return refused

Return refused; the applicant father was found to have consented to the child living in South Africa permanently and the child would face a grave risk of harm if returned to the applicant.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had been proved.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the removal had breached the father's rights of custody, and there was in-sufficient evidence to indicate consent. In addition the standard required under Article 13(1)(b), to indicate that the children would face a grave risk of harm, had not been met.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the retention of the children had been wrongful, but a grave risk of harm had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful as it breached the father's rights of custody.

Return ordered

Return ordered; the State was liable for travel costs involved in the return but the court reserved the right to recover some or all of those costs from the mother.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal was wrongful, but Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Issues Relating to Return |

Return ordered with undertakings offered

One child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 5 and a half – National of Ukraine and the United Kingdom – Father national of the United Kingdom and South Africa – Mother national of Hungary and Ukraine – Child lived in Ukraine in the mother’s custody with regular contact with the father – Following Russian invasion of Ukraine in late February 2022 child and Mother move to England In April 2022 – Mother plans to return to Ukraine in Summer 2022 – Father obtains Prohibited Steps Order from English Court - Application for return issued on 29 July 2022 – Main issues: habitual residence and Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – risk of exposure to war – risk of loss of relationship with father due to alleged closure of court system and mothers hostility to father – A child’s retained roots in Ukraine support his habitual residence remains in the Ukraine – The risk faced by the child upon return to Ukraine failed to meet the threshold of ‘grave harm’ – the region was not subject to active hostility and life continued as normal – the court system was functioning – mother promoted contact – undertakings reduced any risk below grave risk threshold. – Return ordered

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed, return refused. The child was settled in its new environment.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; Article 13(2) had been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and no exception raised was applicable.